Ludmila Carapinha, Catarina Guerreiro Portuguese Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction: perspectives of indicted drug users on their role in drug use 2nd European Conference on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies STRUCTURED SESSION: The Portuguese decriminalization model – a comprehensive approach Ludmila Carapinha, Catarina Guerreiro SICAD Serviço de Intervenção nos Comportamentos Aditivos e nas Dependências www.sicad.pt |TELEF: +351 211 119 000 | EMAIL: sicad@sicad.min-saude.pt

The research team works in the Portuguese governmental organization dedicated to the monitoring and intervention in addictive behaviours: General – Directorate for the Intervention in Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies. 20/11/18

What effects do the Commissions have on indicted drug users? AIMS What effects do the Commissions have on indicted drug users? 2 important dimensions of intervention Drug use Information on drugs (risks) Expected effects 20/11/18

METHOD Older than 18 Portuguese residents Not imprisoned TARGET-POPULATION Older than 18 Portuguese residents Not imprisoned Capable of reading/writing Portuguese Visiting the Commission for the 1st time under a new administrative proceeding, in the last trimester of 2014, and with proceeding closed until the end of the 1st trimester 2016 Not absolved under this proceeding N = 1 653 18 Commissions 20/11/18

METHOD T0 N=892 participants T1 N=336 participants Questionnaire about the work done with the offender (filled by the Commissions) Self-report questionnaire Addicted/Non-Addicted T1 N=336 participants N=297 participants non-addicted 20/11/18

N=297 participants non-addicted RESULTS Intervention of the Commission N=297 participants non-addicted Information about drugs’ risks (general procedure) Brief Interventions: 73% Referral to services related with addictive behaviours: 17% Referral for other types of services: 7% Proceeding length (T0  T1) = 6 months (median) 20/11/18

N=297 participants non-addicted RESULTS Descriptive (T0) N=297 participants non-addicted Almost all males (90%) Half (55%) with more than 9. grade; a third (38%) with 9. grade Young (68% with 18-24; 22% with 25-34) Sociodemographic features 20/11/18

N=297 participants non-addicted RESULTS Descriptive (T0) N=297 participants non-addicted Drug use in the 30D before (%) Cannabis frequency in the 30D before (%) ≥ 1 time/week ≥ 1 time/day < 1 time/week Didn’t use Others* Just Cannabis * May include, or not, cannabis. Other illicit substances are: amphetamines (n=7), cocaine cl (n=4), ecstasy (n=4), hallucinogenic mushrooms (n=2), heroin (n=2), crack cocaine (n=1), np benzodiazepines (n=1) 20/11/18

N=297 participants non-addicted RESULTS Descriptive (T0) N=297 participants non-addicted 20/11/18

Cannabis use: T0  T1 RESULTS Reported reduction in drug use  reduction in cannabis use N = 123 N = 4 McNemar test for related samples: p<0,001 Other drugs use in T1: cocaine (n=1); amphetamines (n=2); LSD (n=4); ecstasy (n=1); hallucinogenic mushrooms (n=2) 20/11/18

Frequency of cannabis use (among users): T0  T1 RESULTS Frequency of cannabis use (among users): T0  T1 N = 42 N = 21 McNemar test for related samples: p<0,005 20/11/18

RESULTS T1: Do you think the contact with the CDT had some effect in your illicit substance use? (n=284)   YES: 76% When I smoke (rarely), never on the side walk I’ve got more aware It made me see what is drug My approach and opinion about drugs What changed? n=277 20/11/18

Regular use of cannabis does not lead to major problems: T0  T1 RESULTS Agreement with: Regular use of cannabis does not lead to major problems: T0  T1 N = 93 N = 67 McNemar test for related samples: p<0,005 20/11/18

RESULTS Agreement with: Along it is sporadic, cannabis use does not lead to major problems: T0  T1 N = 95 N = 56 McNemar test for related samples: p<0,005 20/11/18

RESULTS T0  T1 Cannabis use is more harming than alcohol (T0/T1: p>0,05) Cannabis use is more harming than tobacco (T0/T1: p>0,05) Along it is sporadic, cocaine use does not lead to major problems (T0/T1: p>0,05) Along it is sporadic, heroin use does not lead to major problems (T0/T1: p>0,05) Smart drugs, previously sol in shops, are safer than the other drugs (T0/T1: p>0,05) NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN T0 AND T1 20/11/18

RESULTS T1: Do you think the contact with the CDT changed some of the ideas you had about illicit drugs? (n=286)   YES: 62% I’m more responsible Some people worry with a more liberal future Perspective of the law % What changed? n=281 20/11/18

Non-addicted drug users CONCLUSION Information on drugs (risks) Non-addicted drug users Agreement with sentences devaluating the risk of regular/sporadic cannabis use - Agreement with sentences comparing the risk of cannabis with licit drugs - Agreement with sentences devaluating the risk of other drugs Frequency of cannabis use Frequency of other drugs 76% report that CDT had some effect on their drug use: quit/decrease 62% report that CDT had some effect on their ideas on drugs: risks/effects Drug use 20/11/18

Thank you for your attention Research Team Coordination: Carla Ribeiro Ludmila Carapinha, Catarina Guerreiro, Lúcia Dias The research team wishes to thank to: Former and present coordination of Dissuasion Members and staff form the Commissions Colleagues from SICAD Thank you for your attention ludmila.carapinha@sicad.min-saude.pt ; catarina.guerreiro@sicad.min-saude.pt www.sicad.pt 20/11/18